update from 7 months ago: Homopeptide added evidence and the entry now reflects it
#vendor-verification 2026-01-16
- identity_shift — update from 7 months ago: Homopeptide added evidence and the entry now reflects it 18:55
- ghk_gia — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 19:01
- ghk_gia — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation 19:03
- rotate_the_site — slightly off topic but nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, i could be wrong 19:41
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
lot number or nothing
slightly off topic but nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, i could be wrong
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
coming back after 21 months, has the standard changed
ok so verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
both numbers go in
not a recommendation
refresh on evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, happy to be corrected
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers